there are *lots* of modes of fund raising, however one of the most critical is targeting. it is MUCH less useful to send out 100 letters to the 100 biggest NFP donors who get 1000's or requests daily, than it is to look at specific fields that will/could benefit, in fact it can be very damaging.

i.e. in our case while general mills might give us some cash, chances are speaking to the vp for 3d printing at 3m will generate more interest on their part, so even if they don't have the funds or resources to donate, they may recommend another source of funds or materials. (painting richard drew as a "maker" would be a good lead in, *once* we have an organization, and a budget, and a solid needs list.)

a big list is good, but talking to everyone on it is BAD in that folks don't see you as addressing their interests in giving, and caring about their philanthropy. you get one person who sits on a few boards, or talks to their friend on another board, and sees a the same group pop up with a non-focused pitch, even if they *are* a good fit for one board's mission you're not going to get it because they see you not paying attention to what you're doing, which means you can't pay attention to how you spend the $$ and it's not a long term investment.

if folks start feeling out funding sources before anything is coordinated, chances are very good that it'll just sour those sources for once things are coordinated.

metis wrote:there are *lots* of modes of fund raising, however one of the most critical is targeting. it is MUCH less useful to send out 100 letters to the 100 biggest NFP donors who get 1000's or requests daily, than it is to look at specific fields that will/could benefit, in fact it can be very damaging.

i.e. in our case while general mills might give us some cash, chances are speaking to the vp for 3d printing at 3m will generate more interest on their part, so even if they don't have the funds or resources to donate, they may recommend another source of funds or materials. (painting richard drew as a "maker" would be a good lead in, *once* we have an organization, and a budget, and a solid needs list.)

a big list is good, but talking to everyone on it is BAD in that folks don't see you as addressing their interests in giving, and caring about their philanthropy. you get one person who sits on a few boards, or talks to their friend on another board, and sees a the same group pop up with a non-focused pitch, even if they *are* a good fit for one board's mission you're not going to get it because they see you not paying attention to what you're doing, which means you can't pay attention to how you spend the $$ and it's not a long term investment.

if folks start feeling out funding sources before anything is coordinated, chances are very good that it'll just sour those sources for once things are coordinated.

(side note: i used to be really good at development. i hate it.)

Yes, this is good, we should wait to fundraise until we have some clear goals that people can identify with, and a clear direction that we want to head.

paulsobczak wrote:Yes, this is good, we should wait to fundraise until we have some clear goals that people can identify with, and a clear direction that we want to head.

The local MN organization, The McKnight Foundation may be a great one to pursue. Grant applications are broken into sub-groups. Just skimming, I could see the money given to TC Maker under their "Region and Communities" program. The Grantees List gives you an idea of what other organizations have had success...

I have two pals who are quite familiar with writing grant applications -- one for the medical sector, and one for the international aid sector. I may be able to get some grant application templates if need be. Could also get them to proof an application for greater success...